ICYMI
Welcome to the Institute for Free Speech
From Bradley A. Smith and David Keating
We began in 2005 as a small nonprofit called the Center for Competitive Politics. Years of growth have transformed us into a national leader on free speech issues, but now it’s time for a change. We are pleased to introduce you to the Institute for Free Speech along with our new logo, revised website, and new web address. We hope you will continue to support us as we promote and defend the political rights to free speech, press, assembly, and petition guaranteed by the First Amendment.
While our name is new, our mission hasn’t changed. We go to court to help clients protect their rights and set new precedents. We work with government officials to craft laws that expand free political speech rights consistent with the Constitution. We produce research on which we build a strong case for political speech rights. We communicate with and educate the public, legislators, organizations, and the media to enable every American to understand the importance of the First Amendment’s political speech freedoms. Our many successes in these areas have served to expand free speech protections for individuals and organizations around the country. All of these efforts will continue…
The Center for Competitive Politics was just the beginning. We are excited to begin a new era – the era of the Institute for Free Speech.
Center for Competitive Politics Renamed Institute for Free Speech
Though the group’s name is changing, its mission will remain the same. Since its founding in 2005, the Institute has fought for First Amendment political speech rights in every significant court case where they were at stake. Its efforts have contributed to a dramatic restoration of these rights – no other organization has done more to strengthen them.
“Back in 2005, it was important to emphasize that limiting speech frustrates our ability to have free and competitive elections,” said Institute for Free Speech Chair and Founder Bradley A. Smith. “But our very success in establishing the right to spend and speak about elections, especially in SpeechNow.org v. FEC, which established ‘super PACs,’ has led those who oppose robust discussion of candidates and issues to try to squelch speech in myriad new ways.”
“Free speech about candidates and issues remains subject to direct assault, but it is also being attacked indirectly with arcane rules at every level, using securities regulation, broadcast regulation, the IRS, government contracting power, harassment of individuals and organizations who speak out, and more,” Smith continued…
“Most Americans support free speech,” said President David Keating. “We want people to know who we are and what we’re about from the first moment they meet us. Our new name will quickly tell policymakers, journalists, judges, and potential supporters what we do. It will help us become even more effective.”
New from the Institute for Free Speech
2016 Election Cycle Spending vs. Consumer Spending Infographic
By Alex Cordell
A common refrain from proponents of greater speech regulation is that Americans spend “too much money on politics.” In the 2016 election cycle, “too much money” amounted to $6.4 billion. That may sound like a lot, but when compared to consumer spending on a variety of frivolous or non-essential goods, the amount Americans spend speaking about candidates and elections pales significantly in comparison. Check out the Institute for Free Speech’s newest infographic comparing election and consumer spending here.
In the News
Nextgov: Online Political Ad Bill Could Burden Small Publishers, Experts Tell House Panel
By Jack Corrigan
The Honest Ads Act, introduced last week by Sens. Amy Klobuchar, D-Minn., and Mark Warner, D-Va., would expand the Federal Election Campaign Act’s definition of “electioneering communication” to include paid political ads online…
Interactive Advertising Bureau President and CEO Randall Rothenberg raised concerns about a section of the bill that requires web platforms to keep a public registry of advertisers-in a machine-readable format-who have spent more than $500 cumulatively on online ads.
While this wouldn’t be an issue for large platforms like Facebook and Twitter, he argued it could place an undue burden on smaller publishers. Rosenberg also suggested that self-regulation by the platforms could make a larger impact than federal legislation.
Some panelists also expressed concern that the legislation could stifle free speech.
FECA already prohibits foreign nationals from making any contribution to any federal, state or local U.S. election, and provides the tools needed to combat interference by Russia or any other country, said Allen Dickerson, legal director of the Center for Competitive Politics. He also said the Honest Ads Act could infringe on citizens’ first amendment right to political free speech by tacking on additional compliance rules to small, cash-strapped grassroots campaigns.
Republican National Lawyers Association: Testimony to House Oversight Committee on Threat to Free Speech from Online Ad Regulation
By Lisa Dixon
Yesterday, Allen Dickerson of the Center for Competitive Politics (as of today, now called the Institute for Free Speech) testified to the House Oversight and Government Reform Committee’s Subcommittee on Information Technology on the dangers posed to free speech by proposals to regulate internet advertisements…
Mr. Dickerson points out the current proposals are impractical and would expand the definition of electioneering communications to include genuine issue speech…
In the end, Mr. Dickerson cautions against a broad regulatory approach that may or may not actually prevent foreign advertising (some of which already prohibited by law) but would certainly infringe on Americans’ important rights of political speech online…
Mr. Dickerson’s entire testimony is well worth reading. A point that he makes throughout is worth remembering: the internet allows small, grassroots organizations and individuals to speak (i.e., advertise their message) in a way that is unprecedented.
Concurring Opinions: FAN 167.1 (First Amendment News) Center for Competitive Politics Renamed Institute for Free Speech
By Ronald K.L. Collins
The Center for Competitive Politics (CCP), the nation’s largest organization dedicated solely to protecting First Amendment political rights, announced today its new name, the Institute for Free Speech…
Pulitzer Prize-winning columnist George Will hailed CCP as the “gold standard” in advocacy work. But despite its success, CCP’s name often confused people about its work and objectives. The name Institute for Free Speech will clearly convey the group’s mission, to longtime supporters and newcomers alike.
Internet Speech Regulation
Cato: The Foot in the Door on Internet Speech Regulation
By John Samples
Campaign finance has captured Congress’s attention once again, which rarely bodes well for democracy. Senators Amy Klobuchar, Mark Warner, and (of course) John McCain have introduced the Honest Ads Act…
Those familiar with the struggles over campaign finance in recent decades will recall that Congress often sees regulation of spending as way to improve speech. Unregulated spending supposedly contributed to “negative ads” which in turn harmed our democracy. In truth, negative ads attracted attention and increased voter turnout and knowledge.
The bill’s focus on allegedly “bad speech” raises two issues. First, mandating disclosure of who bought the ad may not improve the speech. Second, and more importantly, the content of speech is protected by the First Amendment. Congress does not have the power to “improve” speech by regulating ad financing or by any other means.
The larger picture here is more disturbing. Congress appears to be using a panic induced by Russian electoral meddling to impose itself on a largely unregulated Internet. Mandated disclosure of ad spending is the first but not the last step toward Facebook and Google becoming public utilities. Anyone who cares about free speech should be skeptical about such disclosure.
Free Speech
USA Today: We need to restore trust in free speech. We’re opening a new center to help
By Janet Napolitano
More than half a century since the Free Speech Movement was born on the UC Berkeley campus, suddenly up for debate is the principle that each of us has a First Amendment right to freely express ourselves, wherever and however we want…
The time has come to explore in a thoughtful, deliberative way the state of free speech at our nation’s colleges and universities, students’ once and future relationship with the First Amendment, and what tomorrow holds for engaging people in our democracy.
We need to bring together people of different backgrounds, experiences and political views from across the country and apply the best legal, social science, journalistic and other research to inform policies on our campuses, in our state legislatures and in Washington, D.C.
To drive this effort, I am launching the National Center for Free Speech and Civic Engagement at UCDC, the University of California’s Washington location. Cognizant of both the enduring constitutional principles of free speech and the nature of our changing times, the center and its roster of fellows will focus on addressing whether and how students’ relationship to the First Amendment has fundamentally shifted from the 1960s – and how to restore trust in the value and importance of free speech among students and society at large.
FEC
Washington Examiner: FEC complaint alleges Clinton campaign, DNC violated campaign law by funding ‘Trump dossier’
By Mandy Mayfield
The Democratic National Committee and Hillary Clinton’s 2016 presidential campaign committee violated campaign finance laws after they failed to disclose payments linked to the so-called “Trump dossier,” alleged a complaint filed with the Federal Election Commission by the Campaign Legal Center…
“By filing misleading reports, the DNC and Clinton campaign undermined the vital public information role of campaign disclosures,” Adav Noti, senior director of trial litigation and strategy at Campaign Legal Center, said in a press release. “Voters need campaign disclosure laws to be enforced so they can hold candidates accountable for how they raise and spend money. The FEC must investigate this apparent violation and take appropriate action.”…
“Payments by a campaign or party committee to an opposition research firm are legal, as long as those payments are accurately disclosed,” Brendan Fischer, director of federal and FEC reform at Campaign Legal Center, said. “But describing payments for opposition research as ‘legal services’ is entirely misleading and subverts the reporting requirements.”
Political Parties
Bloomberg BNA: DNC Fundraising Committee Allows Large Contributions
By Kenneth P. Doyle
A newly registered Democratic Party joint fundraising committee will be able to solicit annual contributions of more than $540,000 per individual donor, or about $1.1 million per year from a married couple, according to the nonprofit Issue One, which seeks to control the influence of money in politics.
Meredith McGehee, policy chief at Issue One, challenged the creation of the fundraising committee, called the Democratic Grassroots Victory Fund. A Federal Election Commission filing said it would solicit contributions to benefit the Democratic National Committee, as well as Democratic state parties in all 50 states and the District of Columbia.
“The Democratic Grassroots Victory Fund seems to be drawing a roadmap for how wealthy people can give more than half a million dollars a year in a single check to the political party of their choice,” McGehee said in a statement. “There’s a huge disconnect between this new fundraising organization’s name and what it does to eviscerate campaign contribution limits.”
The States
California Capitol Weekly: Follow CA’s political money: New rules in 2018
By Sophia Bollag
The Disclose Act, which Gov. Jerry Brown signed earlier this month, passed the Legislature after years of negotiations with labor unions and other interest groups. Supporters call it the strongest campaign money transparency law in the nation, but others say interest groups had too much sway over the bill…
The additional disclosure requirements could hinder some campaigns from reaching voters, said David Wolfe of the Howard Jarvis Taxpayers Association. He also characterized the new earmarking rules as an “unfair carve-out” for unions.
“If you truly want to be transparent, it needs to be equitable,” he said.
Democratic political consultant Steve Maviglio praised the bill’s new disclosure requirements, but said they only go so far in limiting the influence of big money on campaigns. For most voters, knowing who funded an ad won’t necessarily sway their opinion on an issue.
“I think it’s largely symbolic, but it’s an important step in disclosure,” he said. “There’s been a lot of talk about exposing big money behind campaigns, [but] until there’s some significant changes at the way the the Supreme Court looks at that, I think we’re just nibbling at the edges.”
Albuquerque Journal: Dark money still alive under campaign rules
By Editorial Board
While Secretary of State Maggie Toulouse Oliver’s rewrite of state campaign finance rules provides some much needed guidance on campaign finance reporting, it falls short of the goal of shedding light on the entire spectrum of “dark money” …
A case in point is “Step Up Steve,” an “educational” ad campaign sponsored by five nonprofits targeting the voting record of U.S. Rep. Steve Pearce, the Hobbs oil businessman seeking the GOP nomination to run for governor. (So far, he’s the only Republican to announce for governor.)
Earlier this month, the nonprofits – the Hispanic Access Foundation, New Mexico Wildlife Federation, Progress Now New Mexico Education Fund, Organizers in the Land of Enchantment Education Fund (OLÉ) and Vet Voice Foundation – began running ads online, on radio, in print and on billboards critical of Pearce’s stances on public lands, renewable energy and conservation…
Because each of the five nonprofits has 501(c)(3) status with the IRS, they’re not required to disclose their donors. And because it’s not 30 days before a primary election or 60 days before a general election, and they don’t explicitly urge voters to cast ballots against Pearce or for one of the four Democrats running for their party’s nomination, they land outside Toulouse Oliver’s revised rules.
